Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Eric. > > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> It's a bit scary tho. Working inode->i_dentry or dentry->d_alias >>> crosses multiple sb's. sysfs isn't too greedy about dcache/icache. >>> Only open files and directories hold them and only single copy of >>> sysfs_dirent is there for most nodes. Wouldn't it be better to stay on >>> the safer side and use separate inode hierarchy? >> To do that I believe we would need to ensure sysfs does not use >> the inode->i_mutex lock except to keep the VFS layer out. Allowing us >> to safely change the directory structure, without holding it. > > I don't think sysfs is depending on i_mutex anymore but I need to go > through the code to make sure. > >> You raise a good point about inode->i_dentry and dentry->d_alias. >> Generally they are used by fat like filesystems but I am starting to >> see uses in generic pieces of code. I don't see any problems today >> but yes it would be good to do the refactoring to allow us to duplicate >> the inodes. > > Yeah, I can't spot any place which can cause actual problem yet but it's > still scary as we're breaking a vfs assumption and even if it's not a > problem now, future seemingly unrelated changes can break things subtly.
Okay, one small problem spotted. It seems invalidate_inodes() can fail which will make generic_shutdown_super() complain. It's not a fatal failure tho. -- tejun _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel